Germany: The Reluctant World Power?

Is Germany using the debt crisis to dominate Europe? That is what some Europeansthink. But Germany's position in Europe is what its neigbors wanted after World War II.

by Paul Kieffer
February 24, 2012

France's foreign secretary Robert Schuman
proposed the European coal and steel union.

Germany's Konrad Adenauer was Schuman's
partner in establishing a new Europe.

Judging by the reactions to the negotiations
on approving loans to stabilize the euro, Europe's old fears
about a strong Germany seem to be reawakening. Angry
demonstrators in Athens call Germany's leaders "Nazis," while
the British press claims that Germany is using the euro crisis
to fulfill its old but long suppressed dream of having an
empire of its own.

In a commentary on Germany's position during last summer's
negotiations on a new loan for debt-plagued Greece, a Daily
Telegraph columnist claimed that Germany was on the verge
of fulfilling Bismarck's old dream of a German economic empire
in Europe. That empire would see southern European countries
like Greece and Portugal – and later Spain and Italy, too
– become "deindustrialized." As a source of cheap labor
and raw materials, they would become de facto German colonies
as Germany transforms itself into one of the world's most
efficient and productive economies.

According to the Daily Telegraph, today's situation
in Europe is very similar to the one following the Wall Street
stock market crash of October 1929. The resulting worldwide
depression brought the Weimar Republic to its knees, providing
German fascism a boost. In view of this historical precedent
the Daily Telegraph sees the potential for big changes
in Europe arising from the current crisis ("The euro crisis
will give Germany the empire it's always dreamed of," July 21,
2011).

One month afer the Daily Telegraph commentary the
British mass circulation Daily Mail expressed its
concern over growing teutonic power on the European continent.
Claiming that Germany is using the financial crisis to conquer
Europe, the Daily Mail reported that a German "fourth
reich" is on the horizon.

"If the euro is to survive – and with it the European
project – the other 16 Eurozone countries will have to be
like the Germans. Indeed, they must lose the freedom not to be
like the Germans. That means a complete fiscal union in which
Germany, as the EU's most powerful economy and principal
paymaster, makes the rules and makes them unbreakable. Be in no
doubt what fiscal union means: it is one economic policy, one
taxation system, one social security system, one debt, one
economy, one finance minister. And all of the above would be
German" ("Rise of the Fourth Reich, how Germany is using the
financial crisis to conquer Europe," August 17, 2011).

In an article published before January's EU summit meeting
in Brussels on the euro crisis, the Daily Mail continued
its anti-German rhetoric. In a reference to the organizational
structure used by Nazi Germany, the newpaper described Berlin's
suggestion to have a European official oversee the Greek
economy as assigning a "Gauleiter" for Greece (January 28,
2012). Germany's Bild newspaper had earlier quoted the
Daily Mail description of conquest by German economic
domination: "In the past military conquest would have been
necessary to get rid of the leadership in a European country.
Today it happens via economic pressure. With help from their
French allies the Germans caused a regime change in two of the
most troublesome eurozone countries" – Greece and Italy
(November 9, 2011).

Germany's leadership role within the
eurozone

Coming from the United Kingdom, comments like those cited
seem odd since the country is not a eurozone member and in all
likelihood never will be. British prime minister David Cameron
has made it clear that his country will not participate in
financial support for the euro and will not be part of the
proposed fiscal union of eurozone and other EU members.

Germany cannot shirk the responsibility that Britain is
unwilling to bear for solving the euro crisis. German
chancellor Angela Merkel has said repeatedly that the collapse
of the common currency would also mean the end of the "European
experiment," as she calls it. Germany has been committed to the
vision of a unified Europe from the beginning, and Germany's
participation in preserving the euro is consistent with that
vision. The permanent "European Stability Mechanism" (ESM)
which takes effect on July 1, 2012 will be a € 500 billion
fund, and Germany's contribution to the fund is € 190
billion.

Even though Germany is committed to preserving the euro,
David Cameron criticized Germany at the January World Economic
Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Cameron said Germany has
to do even more to help provide a lasting solution for the
current eurozone crisis. In Cameron's view, Germany needs to do
more to stimulate its own economy, which in turn would provide
an economic boost for other eurozone members as more of their
products would be exported to Germany.

Criticial comments from the British press and prime minister
are actually a reflection on the key role that Germany has
assumed in the eurozone. With its economy being by far the
largest among eurozone members, Germany's current role was
predictable from the beginning.

However, Berlin did not seek its leadership role in the
currency union. On the contrary: Germany's European partners
– especially France – wanted it to participate in
the eurozone. For France, German membership in the currency
union (euro) meant the end of the German mark's dominance among
European currencies and further integration of Germany within
Europe.

On the 20th anniversary of German unification, the news
magazine Der Spiegel reported on the alleged gentlemen's
agreement between French president Francois Mitterand and
German chancellor Helmut Kohl at the time of the
"four-plus-two" talks that formally ended World War II and
paved the way for unification. The Spiegel report shows
Mitterand with a clear position as the talks began: "The
Germans are facing an important choice. Germany can only hope
for reunification if it stands in a strong community."

According to former Mitterand advisor Hubert Védrine,
"Mitterrand did not want any reunification without progress on
European integration. And the only ground that was prepared for
that was the [common] currency." Former German Bundesbank
president Karl-Otto Pöhl adds: "The European monetary
union may never have taken place without German unification"
(Der Spiegel, 39/2000).

With Germany being more securely integrated within Europe
via the currency union, Mitterand's concerns about his neighbor
– soon to be much larger as a result of unification
– were dispelled. Germany's role in the ongoing euro
crisis is not the result of any desire on the part of German
leaders for Germany to establish itself as a world power.
Instead, it is the natural result of Germany's integration
within the eurozone, which is what Germany's neighbors wanted
from the start.

The origin of today's French-German
partnership

Prior to each recent euro crisis summit meeting, Angela
Merkel and French president Nicolas Sarkozy met to coordinate
their position for the summit. The joint position then became
an agenda item for the meeting. Since France insisted on
Germany being a member of the monetary union, achieving a
common French-German position for euro summit meetings is
consistent with the integration France desired for Germany from
the beginning.

Berlin and Paris working in tandem today continues the
pattern established more than 60 years ago of cooperation
between France and Germany to promote European unity. By
getting involved in "project Europe" after World War II, both
countries were determined to eliminate the problems of
competition and hostility that resulted from strong national
states vying for dominance in Europe.

The driving force on the French side was foreign minister
Robert Schuman, who sought reconciliation with France's old
enemy and its integration into a European patchwork. In
retrospect Schuman seems to have been predestined for his role.
When Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 after defeating
France on the battlefield, his father became a German citizen.
Thus Schuman was born as a German citizen in 1886. He earned
his law degree in Germany and then practiced law in Metz while
being assigned to a German reserve army unit. When
Alsace-Lorraine was returned to French sovereignty in 1919, he
became a French citizen for the first time, but without any
residual hate for Germany.

Five years after Germany's armed forces surrendered to the
allies, Schuman – now France's foreign minister –
proposed the creation of a European coal and steel union that
was the first step toward a postwar united Europe. The Schuman
declaration of May 9, 1950 stated:

"[A united] Europe cannot be created with a single stroke,
nor by means of a simple combination. It will arise via
concrete steps that first create a unity of action
. . . For this purpose the French government proposes
taking action on a limited but decisive point . . .
Combining coal and steel production will immediately create a
common basis for ensuring economic development and be the first
step towards a European federation."

Schuman's proposal caused a sensation. "The announcement of
the Schuman plan was a welcome message for the generation that
had suffered through World War II and now had hope that another
war among European brothers would not – and could no
longer – break out. As stated in the Schuman declaration,
combining heavy industry – which was also the industry of
armaments – would make a war between France and Germany
materially impossible. A grave was thereby dug for the
centuries-old enmity between the two neighboring countries, and
with its gravestone a foundation was laid for unifying Europe"
(Franz Herre, A wie Adenauer, Stuttgart, Deutsche
Verlags-Anstalt, 1997, pages 67-68).

Thirteen years after making his proposal Schuman described
the approach he took: "One could not presume to present a
European economic proposal immediately and implement it on all
levels. Because of the technical complications and the
insufficient mental preparation one had to proceed in stages"
(Schuman, Für Europa, Hamburg, Nagel, 1963).

Schuman made no attempt to disguise his goal of integrating
the German national state in an international European
partnership, thereby preventing Germany from pursuing hostile
plans toward its neighbors. Just five months prior to making
his proposal for a coal and steel union, Schuman addressed this
topic in a speech given in Brussels:

"The result of Germany's membership in a [proposed] European
organisation – if it subjugates this country to the needs
of the whole community – will be its rehabilitation and a
guarantee for us . . . It places the German potential
for intellect and work in the service of Europe and Germany
benefits itself from the intellectual und material potential
that Europe provides in such a community . . .
Germany is the most dangerous when it is left to itself and
its fearful and destructive state of unrest" (December 18,
1949; emphasis added).

Germany's integration in today's European Union is hardly
the result of its desire to achieve a European empire. Instead,
it is just the place where Germany's neighbors – France
uppermost – wanted it to be.

The historic roots of today's Europe

Schuman's partner in integrating Germany within a European
framework was German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Both men were
Christian democrats. "Political friends and opponents alike
referred to them as Carolingians because they sought to create
a new Europe [after World War II] with a Christian
spirit, initially on the territory of the old Carolingian
empire" (A wie Adenauer, page 66; emphasis added).

The Carolingian kingdom of Charlemagne provided a vision of
a future united Europe after the war. After all, his kingdom
had united the ancestors of the French and Germans, who
descendants had waged war against each other three times in the
seven decades prior to 1945.

"It was in the court of Charles the Great [or Charlemagne]
that the ancient term of 'Europe' was revived." So wrote
British historian Norman Davies in his 1996 History of
Europe (page 302). "The Carolingians [the noble family of
the Franks after whom France is named and who ruled in Western
Europe following the fall of the Western Roman Empire] needed a
label to describe that section of the world which they
dominated, as distinct from the pagan lands, from Byzantium
[the Eastern Roman Empire, which still continued as a Christian
state], or from Christendom as a whole. This 'first Europe',
therefore, was an ephemeral Western concept which lasted no
longer than Charles himself" (ibid.).

Charlemagne was not the first or last ruler to seek unity in
Europe. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth
century, there had been a continuous need for unity. Chaos and
confusion, often referred to as "the Dark Ages," followed the
demise of the empire, with barbaric warring tribes moving into
previously civilized areas.

In the sixth century, the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian,
who ruled from Constantinople (modern Istanbul, Turkey), tried
to revive the Roman Empire in the West. He was partially
successful, but his dream did not survive him.

In the eighth century, Muslim Arabs invaded Spain and
rapidly moved north, arriving not far from Paris only 21 years
later. Here, at the famous Battle of Tours in 732 (also known
as the Battle of Poitiers, the place near Tours where it was
actually fought), the Muslims were defeated by Charlemagne's
grandfather, Charles Martel. The western Christendom of the
Roman church was threatened. It's no wonder that Charlemagne
was crowned by the pope, who saw the need for a western emperor
just as there was an emperor in the east.

Historian John Bowle notes that "the event was crucial in
European history, for the revived Western Empire would
continue, in medieval times 'Holy' as well as Roman, and in
theory dominate European politics until the days of [Emperor]
Charles V in the sixteenth century; then . . .
continue until . . . 1806, when Napoleon abolished
it" (A History of Europe, 1979, page 170).

Clearly a regular theme has run through European history
– that of a desire for a united Europe in the tradition
of the Romans. In fact, it goes even further than that. The
desire has been for a united Europe in tandem with the Church
of Rome, just as in the late Roman Empire.

The biblical perspective on Europe's
future

The events in Europe are following a historical pattern
– an attempt to unite the Spanish and Italians, Germans
and Slavs, French and Scandinavians into one empire.

The prophet Daniel was given divine inspiration to reveal
the meaning of a prophetic dream. In Daniel 2 the prophet tells
of four successive empires, including one that will be ruling
at the time of the coming of the Messiah to establish God's
Kingdom on earth. Comparing history with other prophecies, we
see that these four kingdoms were, in order, the Babylonian,
Medo-Persian, Greco-Macedonian and Roman empires.

Speaking of the fourth and final kingdom, Daniel said it
would be "strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and
shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom
will break in pieces and crush all the others" (verse 40). The
Roman Empire indeed proved to be more dominant than the
previous three, swallowing up their remnants in a reign that
lasted for centuries.

Daniel also revealed fascinating prophetic details of this
final kingdom. He said the legs and feet of the image in
Nebuchadnezzar's dream represented a kingdom, later shown to be
the Roman Empire. The image had feet and toes composed "partly
of potter's clay and partly of iron" (verse 41). This indicated
that "the kingdom shall be divided" and "partly strong and
partly fragile" (verses 41-42). Further, "just as iron does not
mix with clay," the components of this kingdom would not firmly
hold together for long (verse 43).

Then, describing the return of Jesus Christ and His
overthrow of all human kingdoms and governments, Daniel says
that "in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up
a kingdom which shall never be destroyed . . . ; it
shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it
shall stand forever" (verse 44).

Specifically, "these kings" here are a group of 10 leaders
united in an end-time union or alliance. Daniel's prophecy
indicates that, because of different cultures and languages,
this final superpower will not be one tightly integrated group
of states, such as the United States, but divergent entities
united for a common purpose. Some will no doubt be much
stronger than others.

The last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, reveals
additional details about this end-time alliance. Chapter 17
provides a symbolic description of a religious political system
that corresponds to the iron portion of Nebuchadnezzar's image
in Daniel 2.

Verses 1-3 describe a "great whore," the Bible's symbol for
false religion. (By contrast, God's true church is always
described as a virgin.) The whore sits on "a scarlet beast"
verse 3, picturing cooperation between church and state.
Politics and religion have been inseparable through almost
1,700 years of European history following the conversion of the
Emperor Constantine to Roman Catholicism in the early years of
the fourth century.

When the apostle John saw this future religious and
political system, represented by a fallen woman riding a beast,
he "marveled with great amazement" (verse 6). An angel then
explained to him that "the beast that you saw was, and is not,
and will ascend out of the bottomless pit." Others "will marvel
. . . when they see the beast that was, and is not,
and yet is" (verse 8).

What is the meaning of such strange wording? The fact that
this beast "was, and is not, and yet is" tells us that the
Roman Empire, which does not exist at this time, will be
restored. It "was," meaning it existed at one time, it "is
not," meaning it did not exist at the time John received his
vision, and it "yet is" and "will ascend out of the bottomless
pit", meaning that it will rise yet again.

Verses 12-13 tell us more about this political-religious
union of "ten kings [leaders] who have received no kingdom as
yet, but they receive authority for one hour [a short time] as
kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give
their power and authority to the beast." The "ten kings" who
transfer their authority for "one hour" to the beast are the
restoration of verse 8 that "will ascend out of the bottomless
pit."

When will that take place? Verse 14 shows us the clear time
setting for this prophecy and establishes the connection
between the "ten kings" and the ten toes of the iron kingdom in
Daniel 2: "These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will
overcome them." The ten kings go to battle against Jesus
Christ. The short period of their reign is cut short by Jesus'
return (see Revelation 11:15).

The Lamb is none other than Jesus Christ. He has not
returned yet, so the fulfillment of this prophecy of 10 leaders
or rulers who are part of this end-time empire is still in the
future. But, clearly, at the time of the end of man's rule,
there is to be a revived Roman Empire. It will oppose the true
Jesus Christ, and its armies will literally fight Him at His
return! Jesus also represents the stone made without human
hands in Daniel 2 that strikes the image upon its feet.

So Daniel 2, verses 40-44 and Revelation 17, verses 12-14
describe the same event: The returning Jesus Christ establishes
a new world order and terminates the existence of the final
resurrection of the Roman Empire that is formed by a union of
ten kings. It might seem hard to believe, but this prophecy
describes Europe's future!

Viewed from this perspective, the roots of the European
Union are interesting. The January 29, 1996, issue of
Newsweek reported: "In January 1957, six nations signed
a treaty on the site of the ancient Roman Capitol, and brought
into being the European Economic Community . . . An
aide to Paul-Henri Spaak, the Belgian foreign minister at the
time, remembers that his boss said, 'Do you think that we have
laid the first stone of a new Roman Empire?' Recalls the aide,
'We felt very strongly we were Romans that day.' "

Germany as the motor of Europe

The claim that Germany is pursuing an old dream of
establishing an empire is ridiculous. On the other hand,
today's Germany, committed to the success of the "European
experiment" and solidly entrenched within its framework (as
desired by her neighbors), does not hesitate to voice its
opinion on European affairs.

Charles Kupchan, professor at Georgetown University and
author of the book The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign
Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century,
describes modern Germany's attitude: "As part of its postwar
policy of reassurance and reconciliation, Bonn for decades
treaded lightly on diplomacy and defense. Since 1999, however,
when the seat of government moved back to Berlin, symbolizing a
renewed self-confidence, Germany has been actively guiding the
EU's evolution, marking out a pathway for building a federal
Europe."

Within the EU, Germany is the biggest trading partner of
each of its member nations. A strong European economy without a
strong German economy isn't going to happen. Although some
Europeans might be uneasy about a strong unified Germany
– as evidenced by the quotes at the beginning of this
article – the creation of a European political and
economic union without German participation is unthinkable.

Europeans realize that, too. To whom do they look for
support in solving the eurozone sovereign debt crisis? On whom
will they rely in similar situations in the future? The
Germans.